S.S.V.G. Infotech (P) Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Cir-3(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 305/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2642 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SWAPNA
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHANA RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) ITA NO.306/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 11 M/S. S.S.V.G. INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN: AAKCS 4457 L VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.305/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 11 M/S. S.S.V.G. INFOTECH (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN: AAJCS 4261 R VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P. MURALI MOHANA RAO REVENUE BY: SMT. N. SWAPNA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 05/11/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/11/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: TH ESE APPEAL S ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 3, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 1421 & 1423/DC - 3(2)/CIT(A) - 3/14 - 15, DATED 17/12/2015 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 148 AND U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY: 2010 - 11. 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL S AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 2. THE L D. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 4. THE ASSESSEE MAY ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY OR S UBSTITUTE ANY OTHER POINTS TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. AO HAD PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER S U/S. 144 R.W.S 148 OF THE ACT WITHOUT PROVIDING PR OPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE S. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER S WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER S OF THE LD. CIT (A), NOW ASSESSEE S ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE S COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. AO DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES HOWEVER BOTH THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER S WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE S OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE S MAY BE PROVIDED WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND 3 ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE S , HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE S NOR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE S APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. AO A ND BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDERS ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE S MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE S , WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D R. THE LD. CIT (A) AS WELL AS THE LD. AO HAD POSTED THE CASE S ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S BEFORE THE LD. AO ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING AND EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE S DID NOT PLACE ANY COGENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY HIS STAND. HENCE, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO PASS ORDERS BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED B Y THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT BOTH THE APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION THEREBY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE S OF BE ING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE S TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. 4 REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SIXTH NOVEMBER, 2020. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 06 TH NOVEMBER, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1. M/S. S.S.V.G. INFOTECH (P) LTD., C/O. P. MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS,6 - 3 - 655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 82. 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(2), HYDERABAD. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3, HYDERABAD. 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.